Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 07, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001055

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 05, 2022

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: NYX Yonge LP

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 – Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: MCR T3.0 C2.0 R.2.5 (Mixed-Use District) in former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and CR 3.0 (c2.0; r2.5) Standard Set 2 (x2444) (Commercial Residential) in city-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013

Proposed Zoning: CR (Commercial Residential) Site specific

Purpose: To vary performance standards including building height, setbacks and floor space index to permit a proposed 12 storey mixed-use building with 109 residential units and ground level commercial space

Property Address: 3180-3202 Yonge Street

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality Reference Number: 20 214204 NNY 08 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001055

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001055

OLT Case Name: NYX Yonge LP v. Toronto (City)

Heard: July 29, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

NYX Yonge LP

J. Hoffman

City of Toronto

J. Davidson

Lytton Park Residents’ Organization Inc.

T. Butler*

Bedford Park Residents Organization

T. Butler*

DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This Decision arises from a settlement hearing that was held in regard to an appeal brought by NYX Yonge LP (“Appellant”) concerning the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision on the Appellant’s application for a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate development on the lands located at 3180 - 3202 Yonge Street (“subject properties”).

2There is presently a row of 12 low-rise buildings on the subject properties with a mix of commercial, office and residential uses on their ground floors and residential units on their second floors. The Appellant seeks to demolish these buildings and build an eleven-storey, mixed-use building in their place.

3The City failed to make a decision within the statutory timeframe regarding the Appellant’s application to amend the City’s Zoning By-law No. 569-2013. As a result, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal.

4On July 25, 2022, the Parties informed the Tribunal that they had reached a proposed settlement. The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing to address the proposed settlement on July 29, 2022.

5Subsequent to the settlement hearing, on August 5, 2022, the City filed with the Tribunal a proposed final zoning by-law amendment on consent. It does not include significant changes from the draft that was before the Tribunal at the settlement hearing.

ISSUES

6The issues that the Tribunal must address when adjudicating a zoning by-law amendment appeal are whether the proposed instrument:

a) is consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister (in this case, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”));

b) conforms with applicable provincial plans (in this case, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”));

c) conforms with applicable official plans (in this case, the City’s Official Plan); and,

d) represents good planning.

The Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and have regard to the information and materials that City Council received in relation to the matters under s. 2.1(2) of the Planning Act.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

7The Appellant filed an affidavit sworn by Jane McFarlane on July 27, 2022 in support of the proposed settlement. Ms. McFarlane is a land use planner retained by the Appellant. She also provided oral testimony at the settlement hearing. The Tribunal qualified her to provide opinion evidence in the field of land use planning.

8The City, the Lytton Park Residents’ Organization Inc., and the Bedford Park Residents Organization support the proposed settlement. None of them provided evidence at the settlement hearing

9At the settlement hearing, Ms. McFarlane stated that the proposed development would consist of an eleven-storey, mixed-use building with a total gross floor area of 11,679 square metres. She said it would have retail units on the ground floor and 104 residential units in the tower above. She said these would include one, two and three bedroom units. She also said the proposed development would have 137 vehicle parking spaces, including a car share space, and 79 bicycle parking spaces.

10Ms. McFarlane opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the PPS. She said the subject properties are located within a settlement area and the proposed development would support nearby transit, use existing road networks and municipal servicing infrastructure, and would contribute to the local supply of housing stock.

11Ms. McFarlane opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the Growth Plan. She said the subject properties are an appropriate location for growth and intensification and the proposed development would support active transportation and public transit, provide a range and mix of housing options, represent compact built form, and contribute to the achievement of complete community.

12Ms. McFarlane opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the City’s Official Plan. She stated that the subject properties are designated as “Mixed Use Areas” and are located along an “Avenue” “and “Major Street” under the City’s Official Plan. She said these areas are intended to be a focus for growth and development. She opined that the proposed development would be compatible with the surrounding built form context and would appropriately intensify an underutilized site that is located close to transit and provide a range of housing options, employment, and retail opportunities. She opined that it would fit within the existing and planned context of the area, have appropriate regard for the City's built form guidelines, provide transition to adjacent neighbourhood areas, and improve the pedestrian realm along Yonge Street. She said that she had regard to the City’s Performance Standards for Mid-Rise Buildings, which address height, angular plane, stepback, streetscape, balcony and other design issues and is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with them.

13Ms. McFarlane stated that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would require the Appellant to obtain a rental Housing Demolition Permit from the City to allow for the demolition of rental dwelling units located on the subject properties and it would require the execution and registration of a s. 37 agreement requiring a cash contribution to be allocated towards local capital improvements, the construction of improvements to existing municipal infrastructure, tenant relocation and assistance, a revised Transportation Impact Study, and a revised Noise Impact Study, among other items.

14Ms. McFarlane stated that she had regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including those on the optimal use of land and infrastructure, support for transit, the provision of housing, and the appropriate location for growth and development.

15Ms. McFarlane noted that the Toronto Catholic District School Board, which has a school in close proximity to the subject properties, does not have any issues regarding the proposed development. She also stated that no buildings of cultural heritage interest will be impacted by the proposed development.

FINDINGS

16Based on Ms. McFarlane’s opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan and the City’s Official Plan. The Tribunal has had regard to the City’s applicable policies and guidelines and the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act as well as the information and materials that City Council received in relation to the matter. The Tribunal finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment constitutes good planning.

ORDER

17The Tribunal orders the appeals are allowed in part and the City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 is amended in accordance with the Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment 1 to this Order and Decision.

18The Tribunal orders that, pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order is effective on August 5, 2022, the date upon which the Tribunal received, reviewed, and approved the final draft version of the proposed zoning by-law amendment, including the minor amendments.

19The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to format, as may be necessary, and assign a number to the Zoning By-law Amendment for record keeping purposes.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS

VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1